Photo credit: www.yahoo.com
The deportation of Konrad Makocki, a Polish serial offender, was recently halted due to a ruling based on human rights legislation. A tribunal judge determined that Makocki had a sufficiently significant relationship with his teenage nephew, warranting the interpretation that his deportation would infringe upon his right to family life as outlined in Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
Judge Nawraz Karbani noted that the potential impact on Makocki’s nephew would be “disproportionate,” despite Makocki’s extensive criminal history, which includes nine convictions and a domestic abuse restraining order aimed at keeping him away from his former partner.
In response, the Home Office characterized the ruling as “perverse” and has initiated an appeal, which has led to an upper tribunal judge nullifying the original decision and ordering a re-evaluation of the case.
This case, revealed through court documents, is among several that illustrate how some migrants and foreign offenders have invoked human rights laws to contest deportation orders in the UK. Previous examples include an Albanian individual who avoided deportation by citing his son’s unusual dietary preferences, and a Pakistani offender convicted of sexual crimes against minors who argued deportation would be unduly harsh on his children.
This trend dominated discussions during last week’s Prime Minister’s Questions. Sir Keir Starmer criticized a tribunal ruling that allowed a Palestinian family to remain in the UK under a Ukrainian refugee scheme, asserting that such matters should be determined by Parliament rather than judicial decisions. He indicated that Yvette Cooper, the Home Secretary, would pursue measures to close existing loopholes.
Currently, there are over 34,000 pending immigration appeals, many based on human rights arguments, which could impede the Labour government’s plans to expedite the removal of numerous illegal migrants while countering challenges from alternative parties like Reform UK.
Concerns About Judicial Discretion
Chris Philp, who is part of the shadow cabinet, criticized the handling of Makocki’s case, suggesting that immigration judges are misinterpreting the definition of family life under the ECHR. He expressed concern that the public is being put at risk from individuals who have demonstrated violent tendencies.
Philp emphasized that the judge’s focus appeared to be more on the rights of a convicted individual rather than on public safety, reinforcing the call for substantial reforms to human rights legislation.
Since moving to the UK in 2009, Makocki has accrued multiple convictions, including assault, harassment, and drug offenses. Following a 10-month prison sentence in 2021, he was subject to a two-year restraining order to prevent contact with his ex-partner. Despite not undergoing rehabilitation, he presented himself in court as having turned a new leaf, expressing intentions to maintain sobriety and remorse for his past actions.
Judge Karbani maintained that the deportation would impact Makocki’s nephew significantly, claiming that the relationship provided essential support to his sister and nephew, which would be lost if Makocki were removed from the country.
Reevaluation of the Case’s Justifications
However, this determination was contested by Matthew Hoffman, an upper tribunal judge, who pointed out the lack of evidence showing Makocki’s active involvement in his nephew’s life prior to his incarceration. Judge Hoffman also noted the absence of clear proof that the nephew would experience severe consequences from the deportation.
He remarked that even though Makocki is not the child’s parent, the original ruling did not sufficiently establish any harsh repercussions for the nephew related to the deportation. Judge Hoffman ordered that the case be reconsidered, expressing alarm over the lengthy duration—two and a half years—before the Home Office appeal was heard. During this period, Makocki may have formed new relationships, potentially complicating the legal landscape surrounding his continued residency under the family rights articulated in Article 8.
Source
www.yahoo.com